On August 7, 2025, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam made a bold proclamation that marked a significant shift in the country’s political landscape: all militias, including Hezbollah, would be disarmed by the end of the year. This announcement, once deemed unimaginable, reflects the complex interplay of internal and external pressures shaping Lebanon’s future.
Hezbollah, a powerful Shia Muslim political organization, has found itself in a precarious position since the ceasefire with Israel in November 2024. The group, which has historically wielded more influence than the Lebanese Army, has been unable to engage in military actions in support of Gaza or Iran, leading to a growing sentiment among some Lebanese factions that it is time to neutralize Hezbollah altogether. However, the question remains: is this initiative genuinely a product of Lebanese governance, or is it being driven by foreign interests, particularly those of the United States?
The disarmament plan, although announced by the Lebanese government, is widely recognized as an American initiative. The Arab media has referred to it as the “American paper,” underscoring the external influence at play. U.S. officials, including Tom Barrack, the ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria, have framed the disarmament as a pathway to economic prosperity for Lebanon, suggesting that a stable, self-governing Lebanon could emerge if Hezbollah is disarmed. This narrative is echoed by domestic advocates who view disarmament as a means to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty and governance.
However, skepticism abounds within Lebanon’s political elite. Some fear that the U.S. and Israel are maneuvering the country toward another devastating civil war. Hezbollah has firmly rejected disarmament, insisting that any such effort must be accompanied by a comprehensive strategy for the Lebanese military to address Israeli threats. Polling data reveals that a significant portion of the Lebanese population shares this skepticism; a survey conducted after the disarmament announcement indicated that 58% opposed disarming Hezbollah without a plan to confront Israel, while 71% doubted the Lebanese Army’s capability to do so.
The U.S. presence in Lebanon is further solidified by figures like Deputy Special Presidential Envoy Morgan Ortagus, who has made headlines for her controversial remarks. During a visit to the Lebanese presidential residence, she thanked Israel for its role in “defeating Hezbollah,” a statement that did not sit well with many Lebanese citizens. Ortagus has been vocal about the U.S. commitment to disarming Hezbollah, asserting that the U.S. aims to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty. Yet, this notion of sovereignty is complicated by the reality that it is being dictated by external powers.
The ceasefire with Hezbollah has allowed Israel to establish a quasi-buffer zone along the Lebanese border, leading to widespread destruction in southern Lebanon. The U.S. has proposed creating an “economic zone” in this area, reminiscent of the controversial “Gaza Riviera” plan. Critics argue that this initiative is less about economic development and more about preventing Hezbollah from rebuilding its influence. Reports suggest that land in southern Lebanon may be seized for solar energy and agricultural projects, raising concerns about the displacement of local populations.
Hezbollah’s leadership has warned that attempts to disarm the group could disrupt Lebanon’s fragile sectarian balance. Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s deputy leader, has threatened a fierce resistance, likening it to the historic “Karbala-style” battle. The Lebanese Army’s commander, Rodolphe Haykal, has expressed discomfort with the severity of American demands, even considering resignation to avoid bloodshed among Lebanese citizens.
While some factions within Lebanon’s parliament, particularly those aligned with the U.S., have shown support for an American-backed economic zone, the broader sentiment remains one of caution. Deadlines for a structured disarmament plan have come and gone, and efforts to disarm Palestinian refugee camps have been criticized as mere media spectacles. The situation is further complicated by ongoing Israeli airstrikes, which have targeted reconstruction efforts in southern Lebanon, exacerbating local frustrations.
As Lebanon navigates this tumultuous landscape, the interplay of internal dissent and external pressure raises critical questions about the future of the country. Will Lebanon emerge as a sovereign state, free from the influence of militias like Hezbollah, or will it find itself spiraling into another cycle of conflict, driven by the ambitions of foreign powers? The coming months will be crucial in determining the trajectory of Lebanon’s political and social fabric.
